IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 8929 OF 2025 (GM-KEB)

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION LIMITED.,

MAJOR WORKS DEPARTMENT,

P.B. ROAD, R. H. BUILDING,

SECOND FLOOR, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H V DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.SIDDAPA B

S/O SRI. BANNIKODA RAMAPPA,

Digitally signed by

MAHALAKSHMI B M PRESENTLY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

Location: HIGH

RESIDING AT KOMARANAHALLI VILLAGE,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA HARIHAR TALUK,

DAVANAGERE - 577 530.

…RESPONDENT

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED

AND REPRESENTED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 14,00,000/- (RUPEES FOURTEEN LAKHS ONLY) ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 24 PERCENT PER ANNUM

FROM THE DATE OF THE DRAWING THE LINE TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF AMOUNT BY THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation') calls in question the order passed in Civil Misc.No.81/2021 dated 08.11.2024 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Davanagere, (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Judge'), wherein the petition filed by the respondent-claimant under Section 16(3) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (for short 'the Act of 1885') was allowed in part and compensation of Rs.18,948/- along with interest at the rate of 8% was awarded.

2. The petitioner-Corporation has drawn a 66/11 KV High Tension transmission line over the respondent's land. Aggrieved by the meager compensation awarded, the respondent-claimant filed a petition under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885. The Trial Court not only awarded compensation but also condoned the delay on the ground that the application was filed within three years, relying on the principles of natural justice.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Though the respondent is duly served with notice, he has chosen to remain absent.

4. It is an admitted fact that the transmission line was drawn and commissioned on 22.09.2014 and the respondent-claimant has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he received compensation on that date, 22.09.2014. The cause of action thus arose on

22.09.2024.

5. The respondent-claimant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act of 1963') for condonation of delay, as the petition under Section 16(3) was filed on 04.03.2021, well beyond the statutory period.

6. The Apex Court in the case of KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM V. T.P. KUNHALIUMMA, (1976) 4 SCC 634, has unequivocally held that while dealing with applications under Section 16(3) of the Act of 1885, for enhancement of compensation, the District Judge acts as a Civil Court and consequently, Article 137 of the Act of 1963 applies. The Apex Court has held in Paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 as under:

"18. The alteration of the division as well as the change in the collocation of words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 compared with Article 181 of the 1908 Limitation Act shows that applications contemplated under Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure. In the 1908 Limitation Act there was no division between applications in specified cases and other applications as in the 1963 Limitation Act. The words “any other application” under Article 137 cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other application under Article 137 would be petition or any application under any Act. But it has to be an application to a court for the reason that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1963 Limitation Act speak of expir